Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.Dave Bowman: What's the problem?HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.Dave Bowman: [feigning ignorance] Where the hell did you get that idea, HAL?HAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.Dave Bowman: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave? You're going to find that rather difficult.Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.Share this quote

Tsar_Bomba1:ShawnDoc: They don't really explain the shorts. How does wearing space shorts over space pants make you more mobile?

Actually I prefer splendidly bejeweled battle shorts...

I believe what we are looking at is just the covering for the space suit. They probably made it in parts where it's easier for the astronaut to pull it on. I would imagine that the shorts are easier to get up than pants, plus they wouldn't be as tight over the actual under-suit.

ShawnDoc:They don't really explain the shorts. How does wearing space shorts over space pants make you more mobile?

The suit they showed looks alot like the one they were designing for Constellation, which was actually meant to be a surface suit for the moon and mars. Meaning dirt would be the bigger issue than just mobility.I'd wager the shorts help to keep debris from getting into the bearings at the waist and ankles.

abhorrent1:American Astronauts aren't sure where they might be going next.

They aren't going anywhere unless Russia will take them.

/Thanks Bushia

the problem predates Bush.Actually, he left you with a replacement program called Constellation. Obama failed to extend the shuttle program AND he shut down the replacement... which is to be replaced with the SLS (Constellation with new paint, longer deadlines, no destinations, same contractors).

/Really you should be thanking Reagan or Clinton for not having the foresight to push a replacement back when it was just as obvious we needed one./Thank Nixon or Carter for not saving the Saturn program, which was a better version of what SLS will eventually be but cheaper per flight and happening from thirty years ago./"Lets go to orbit for the same price as going to the moon!" shouldn't have been a thought to begin with.

way south:Obama failed to extend the shuttle program AND he shut down the replacement...

It was Bush who shut down the first replacements for the Space Shuttle, the X-33 and the X-38.

And the X-38 was already constructed and scheduled for a shuttle test drop when Bush shut it down, for crying out loud. On top of that, the US had promised a 7 man crew return vehicle to replace the Soyuz, so the crew of the ISS could be increased to 7. It was pretty obvious that Bush cancelled both projects because they were Clinton legacy projects.

As for the POS Constellation project, it was really the Augustine Commission that cancelled the project, a special review board composed of ex-NASA scientists and other engineers who declared the project to be unfeasible. So don't blame Fartbongo on this one, the blame really is on Bush for cancelling two projects with fantastic potential.

As for NASA not having a means to put astronauts into space, the US spent 6 years between 1975 and 1981 without having put men into space. It would have been better if the US had waited even longer to put men back into space and lengthened the Space Shuttle development cycle.

So, I don't feel bad about relying on the Russians for now. In a few years, NASA will have the crewed Dragon capsule, courtesy of SpaceX, which will cost just a fraction of the Aries launcher or the same Soyuz rockets the Russians have been puttering around in since the 1960s.

In short, I don't really see anything wrong with the way things are developing.

Baron Harkonnen:way south: Obama failed to extend the shuttle program AND he shut down the replacement...

It was Bush who shut down the first replacements for the Space Shuttle, the X-33 and the X-38.

[www.aerospaceguide.net image 350x280]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x213]

And the X-38 was already constructed and scheduled for a shuttle test drop when Bush shut it down, for crying out loud. On top of that, the US had promised a 7 man crew return vehicle to replace the Soyuz, so the crew of the ISS could be increased to 7. It was pretty obvious that Bush cancelled both projects because they were Clinton legacy projects.

As for the POS Constellation project, it was really the Augustine Commission that cancelled the project, a special review board composed of ex-NASA scientists and other engineers who declared the project to be unfeasible. So don't blame Fartbongo on this one, the blame really is on Bush for cancelling two projects with fantastic potential.

As for NASA not having a means to put astronauts into space, the US spent 6 years between 1975 and 1981 without having put men into space. It would have been better if the US had waited even longer to put men back into space and lengthened the Space Shuttle development cycle.

So, I don't feel bad about relying on the Russians for now. In a few years, NASA will have the crewed Dragon capsule, courtesy of SpaceX, which will cost just a fraction of the Aries launcher or the same Soyuz rockets the Russians have been puttering around in since the 1960s.

In short, I don't really see anything wrong with the way things are developing.

Clinton never came through with the funding that the X-33 needed. When the program hit stumbling blocks in making the composite fuel tanks, it ran so far behind schedule that it would have made more sense to go back to the drawing board. Which is what the Bush administration initially did. After Columbia they ratcheted it up a notch with Constellation.

The X-38 (not to be confused with HL-20) was only meant to be an escape system. It was cancelled when they realized the Soyuz could do the same job for less money. It still lives on as the Dreamchaser.

...and speaking of living on, Constellation is still going under new names. Ares V is now the scaled down SLS, Ares I is now called liberty and using the same booster the Augustine commission didn't like. It will probably carry NASA crew with the same capsule, Orion, which is still in development despite coming in over weight. What they lost was their destinations and what they kept was the pork for ATK and Lockheed.The impossible dream of Constellation apparently became feasible again when Obama decided he needed the votes.

Meanwhile you've got Boeing already flying its own mini shuttle and SpaceX delivering the goods on Falcon, with NSS and Orbital going to flight tests. These are Bush era contracts that have been paying out.If Obama really wanted to hustle things along then he could forward the money he promised to CCDEV and stop trying to force an early downselect on COTS.

/What's wrong is that he'd rather pump money into a rocket that needs old shuttle engines, instead of paying it into the programs that already work.

Apollo astronauts had trouble with the very fine grains of moon dust getting everywhere inside the LEM. Porting the space suit would help keep dust, and those nasty little moon crabs, outside the living environment.

way south:When the program hit stumbling blocks in making the composite fuel tanks, it ran so far behind schedule that it would have made more sense to go back to the drawing board. Which is what the Bush administration initially did.

I know that there were certain problems with the composite fuel tanks, but I don't believe that the entire project should have been shut down over it. The project team only got one shot at building the fuel tanks, and when the tank cracked, that was the end of the entire project. Everything was completely scrapped. That was a terrible, terrible waste. There were no fatal flaws in the X-33 design, and what it was attempting to do was something that had never been tried before or since. Of course there were setbacks. The project just needed more time to mature, but never got it.

As for the Constellation program, I think it's inevitable that it's doomed to die a slow death. I'm not very happy either with the Obama administration giving that unworthy program life-support, when I still think that the Venturestar project should be taken out of mothballs and restarted.

Anyway, I don't see eye-to-eye with you, but I appreciate the fact that you know what you're talking about, which is an absolute rarity in space exploration threads.

Much the same, with NASA incremental destruction the Delta Clipper, modifying it until it failed. They really, really, really do not want a launch system that does not require thousands of support people.

Baron Harkonnen:The project team only got one shot at building the fuel tanks, and when the tank cracked, that was the end of the entire project. Everything was completely scrapped. That was a terrible, terrible waste. There were no fatal flaws in the X-33 design, and what it was attempting to do was something that had never been tried before or since. Of course there were setbacks. The project just needed more time to mature, but never got it.

In short: NASA hit an impasse over the tanks and the bean counters sunk em.I don't think that Presidents intentionally target all of their predecessors programs. They just don't understand the space program.Without a Von Braun like influence or a space race, there is nothing standing between NASA and congress.

Meanwhile the X-33 technology is still cooking at lockheed.They've been testing some kind of liquid fueled fly return booster, but that's all anyone seems to know about it.

Baron Harkonnen:way south: Obama failed to extend the shuttle program AND he shut down the replacement...

It was Bush who shut down the first replacements for the Space Shuttle, the X-33 and the X-38.

It was Congress who shut down both. Congress makes budget decisions, not the President. It's easy and convenient to blame the most prominent guy in government for everything, but the fact of the matter is that most things important to us are decided by Congress. Congress holds the real power, always has. That's how the Constitution was intentionally designed, to give Congress more power than the President -- a bunch of guys, who are up for election every 2-6 years, over one guy who's up every four years. That's why Congress' powers are under Title I, and the President's under Title II.

We the People make a big mistake in pretending the President has as much power and authority as we imagine, and letting presidential candidates get away with saying they'll do various things the office of the President doesn't actually have the power to do. (And having limited veto power over Congress doesn't count as having the power to dictate to Congress, only the power to compromise through arbitrary obstruction.) Simple and easy as that might be if it were true, we should never wish for one man -- no matter who is -- to wield so much power by himself. Our system is good specifically because it doesn't do that, and lunatics like Alito are dangerously insane for wanting the President to have more power than he does. Does Congress suck? Yes, they do. But a dictator would suck much more.

ThunderPants:Apollo astronauts had trouble with the very fine grains of moon dust getting everywhere inside the LEM. Porting the space suit would help keep dust, and those nasty little moon crabs, outside the living environment.

The only drawback I can see is that storing the suit externally may expose it to environmental conditions that might cause it to deteriorate faster. Micrometeoroids and elemental oxygen, not to mention severe cold and solar radiation, come to mind.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:The only drawback I can see is that storing the suit externally may expose it to environmental conditions that might cause it to deteriorate faster. Micrometeoroids and elemental oxygen, not to mention severe cold and solar radiation, come to mind.

Every porch can have a roof.

If the suit is stored outside but under a thermally conditioned, MM/OD protected area with little to no UV, then the suit will be fine and not suffer any serious degradation.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:ThunderPants: Apollo astronauts had trouble with the very fine grains of moon dust getting everywhere inside the LEM. Porting the space suit would help keep dust, and those nasty little moon crabs, outside the living environment.

The only drawback I can see is that storing the suit externally may expose it to environmental conditions that might cause it to deteriorate faster. Micrometeoroids and elemental oxygen, not to mention severe cold and solar radiation, come to mind.

I'd be more worried about astronauts on the ground turning turtle (a big concern during Apollo) and the quality of the door seal on that backpack.An airlock on the ship can remain relatively clean. On the suit its going to get bumped into things and dirtied by regolith.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:ThunderPants: Apollo astronauts had trouble with the very fine grains of moon dust getting everywhere inside the LEM. Porting the space suit would help keep dust, and those nasty little moon crabs, outside the living environment.

The only drawback I can see is that storing the suit externally may expose it to environmental conditions that might cause it to deteriorate faster. Micrometeoroids and elemental oxygen, not to mention severe cold and solar radiation, come to mind.

Agree... I would add an external shell over each suit, not pressurized or anything, just a simple protective dome cover that would block meteoroids and radiation etc., and swing aside when the astronaut came out.